D&D 5E Which common monsters/creature types do you exclude from your campaigns?

[Voadam]

In my last 3e game, I used monsters exclusively from Monsternomicon I and II, Nyambe: African Adventures, and the WoT d20.

Those two full sized hardcover monster books and two big setting books with deep included bestiaries will give a more than decent monster palette to choose from.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The one that came out 6 years ago.

Oh, I thought it might have been in reference to something from 1E given the reaction by @Ruin Explorer ...

I never saw anything in 5E Volo's that would strike that chord, but views differ.

 

[Thomas Rainsborough]

Oh, I thought it might have been in reference to something from 1E given the reaction by @Ruin Explorer ...

I never saw anything in 5E Volo's that would strike that chord, but views differ.

Yeah...not really a fan of being told I am a racist. But I have seen this culture war fought on many forums for a couple years now. Funny how something published a scant 6 years ago, and was considered a brilliant piece of work, is now considered be some as written by people in white hats.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The biggest ones - My world has an odd cosmology and history so there are no evil gods. All gods are good or at least neutral. Evil is left to Devils and Demons and such (so yes an evil cleric in the world is by definition a devil/demon worshiper).
Mindless Physical undead are neutral, undead with a will are evil. No exceptions. Ghosts/Spirits are whole other thing.

Those all tie into my cosmology, history and world - most everything else is negotiable.

 

[SkidAce]

It occurs to me I have never run anything with orcs as an enemy army. I just don’t find them appealing - they probably skew too close to LotR style fantasy for my taste. I’ve had orc bandits and orc pirates, but never orcs-as-a-horde.

since 1986 or so I've excluded orcs and halflings. Just to make the world a little different in style.

 

[SkidAce]

This stuff feels really over-used at this point. I get it, we gazed too far into the abyss.

In terms of the official adventures, I think they should probably lay off both hags and duergar for awhile - especially hags. So many hags.

Back when I built my campaign, it didn't seem overused. We kinda had the Far Realm before the Far Realm.

Now when newer players did deep into the lore of the world, I no longer see a look of surprise.

/sigh

 

[beancounter]

I've never intentionally excluded monsters. However, I tend to go back to the same monsters again and again.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah...not really a fan of being told I am a racist.

Which absolutely no one is.

You can like a problematic thing without being problematic yourself.

Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure very few people considered it 'brilliant' like, ever.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Basically WoTC's recent Fey obsession has soured me on that monster type.

Orcs and Goblinoids are part of a broader humanoid group in my setting - and the lore surrounding them is quite different to standard D&D. They're probably closer to the Umayyad Caliphate, if anything.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah...not really a fan of being told I am a racist. But I have seen this culture war fought on many forums for a couple years now. Funny how something published a scant 6 years ago, and was considered a brilliant piece of work, is now considered be some as written by people in white hats.

That is why I was surprised it was about VGtM for 5E... I just read the section on orcs and, frankly, found nothing remotely racist there.

I know a lot of people today don't like the warlike portrayal of orcs, and in my games they are warlike, but not quite to the extend the write-up in Volo's implies...

And I'm sure when Volo's was released a lot of people thought it was brilliant, while others might not appreciate such write-ups.